Interpreting our biological past: a museum exhibit and analysis of and approach to controversial museum exhibits

Abstract

Science museums are educational institutions that serve the public, using exhibits to communicate and transfer the knowledge of the scientific world to a larger audience. In the past, however, exhibits, the key to the museum's function, were commonly designed by the museum staff without consulting with or informing museum visitors of the exhibit's intent. As a result, exhibits were oftentimes not comprehensible to many of their audiences. In the middle of the twentieth century, visitor surveys and an increased awareness of their clientele caused museums to change their approach to designing exhibits for their visitors. Various techniques are being tested to encourage and emphasize learning and feedback between the visitor and the museum during the development and construction of the exhibit. With the increased feedback have come unforeseen results. Oftentimes, the public disagrees with the way a particular topic is presented or portrayed, and they make their opinions heard, thus, making the exhibit controversial. An analysis of particular controversial exhibits allows the reader to gain a better appreciation for what makes exhibits controversial, and some ways in which the controversy can be avoided. Emphasis will be placed on natural history museums and human evolution exhibits. Human evolution exhibits often are perceived as controversial because the visitor fails to understand the interpretations made by physical anthropologists, and the conclusions they make with regards to our biological past. An approach to designing human evolution exhibits is suggested that emphasizes exploring the interpretations behind the conclusions drawn. It is the aim of the author to communicate to a group of visitors who are ambivalent to, or disagree with, human evolution exhibits. It is hoped that once the visitor examines the interpretations used by physical anthropologists not only to interpret our biological past but our biological present as well, he or she will have a better understanding of the conclusions drawn about our evolutionary history.